Bank charges in succession: removal of cases of gratuitousness

Banks must take various steps following the death of one of their clients, and therefore when opening his estate: among other things, an inventory of funds, establishing exchanges with the notary and transferring the money to the heirs.

These transactions are generally invoiced by banks under the name « bank inheritance fees ».

A 2025 law has put in place a framework for these bank charges. Until then, these were set freely by each bank; their amount therefore varied greatly from one bank to another.

As of November 13, 2025, these fees are capped at 1% of the total amount of the account balances and the valuation of the deceased's savings products. The amount of the bank inheritance fees may not, in any case, exceed € 857 currently (this amount is revalued to 1^er January of each year depending on inflation).

The 2025 law had, moreover, established three situations in which banks cannot request the payment of bank inheritance fees. These were the following:

• when the savings accounts and products in question were detained by a minor ;
• when the total balance of the deceased's accounts and savings products was less than €5,965 ;
• when the heirs presented the bank with an act of notoriety or an attestation signed by all of them, and succession-related transactions were not demonstrably complex.

The Constitutional Council declared, in a decision published in the Official journal of the French Republic of 20 June 2026, that the introduction of these three cases of gratuitousness in connection with inheritance bank charges was contrary to the Constitution.

This declaration of unconstitutionality has immediate effect. As of 20 June, banks are no longer obliged to apply free of charge in these three cases.

In its decision, the Constitutional Council states that the legislator may "provide for special protection of consumers in such situations. However, by prohibiting credit institutions from invoicing transactions carried out in those three cases, whatever the cost, the contested provisions constitute, in the light of the objective pursued, a disproportionate infringement of the freedom to conduct a business and the freedom to contract’.